4 ms·

Jay Rosen on Greenwald's style of reporting: >The professional stance that proscribes all political commitments and discourages journalists from having a clear

Jay Rosen on Greenwald's style of reporting: >The professional stance that proscribes all political commitments and discourages journalists from having a clear view or taking a firm position on matters in dispute (you can call it objectivity, if you like, or viewlessness, which I like better) is one way of doing good work. A very different professional stance, where the conclusions that you come to by staring at the facts and thinking through the issues serve to identify your journalism… this is another way of doing good work. >They are both valid. They are both standard. (And “traditional.”) They are both major league. Greenwald operates in the second fashion, but the language we have for this style — calling him a blogger or an advocate, hoping that these shorthands convey what’s different about him — is not very illuminating. “Blurring the line between opinion pieces and straight reporting…” is not very illuminating. "Politics: none", the first kind of journalism, is a form of persuasion that tries to signal credibility by refraining from taking a view so far as is possible. "Politics: some" is a form of persuasion where you are transparent about your commitments and your judgments of the facts. These both have their advantages, neither is more inherently "journalistic" than the other. http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-two-ways-to-excel-in-political-journalism-neither-dominates/ http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-tw...

namdnay 13y ago
As Camus said: "le goût de la vérité n'empêche pas la prise de parti" - (the taste for truth does not stop you from having an opinion). I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial: newspapers have had opinions for centuries!
- walshemj 13y ago
  Yes you write the story to suit the papers owners political leanings - even the Guardian bashes the BBC (the parent company owns a few low quality commercial radio stations). Let alone what Murdoch and the DMG et all get up to
- peteretep 13y ago
  Presentation of opinion as fact, and selection of a set of facts that support your opinion, with an accompanying omission of those that don't, is controversial.
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    Selecting facts and presenting opinions while pretending not to have them is worse.
  - namdnay 13y ago
    That's why you need the "taste for truth". It's not controversial in the business world: I am perfectly capable of giving an unbiased presentation of the pros and cons of Git over Mercurial, even though I personally prefer the latter.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial Because humans in general have an extreme bias towards believing things they want to believe and not believing things they don't. It is very rare to find someone who truly reports things neutrally and even rarer in a situation where stringent neutrality is not fostered. I guess other people are free to read whatever they want, but I very rarely read opinion pieces or news from people who I know are firmly on one side or another. They are not usually honestly investigating the facts and more likely trying to sway people to their position. Whilst that is understandable as they are human, and they are not necessarily incorrect, it is not what I want from my news.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report.
    - untog 13y ago
      Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. No, the difference is whether or not the approach their writing aware of, and compensating for, their biases.
    - justin66 13y ago
      There really IS an objective truth to report. The NSA is either collecting certain data or it isn't, and so on. There's a lot of stuff like that. There's other, speculative stuff, like to what extent if any the NSA is breaking the law. I'd contend that a reporter who cannot present the facts as facts for fear of being perceived as "biased" or cannot form and state an opinion about the speculative/subjective stuff is kind of subpar.
    - mehwoot 13y ago
      The point is you want journalists working in an environment where it is expected people stay neutral. Whilst one person will have a bias, you always have other people who read the piece and edit it to keep that in check. That sort of person, even if they are just as biased as independent reporter X, will produce much more balanced work. It's all well and good to say "Oh everybody has a bias" but everybody's bias is not as large as anothers, and doesn't affect their writing in the same way. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report. That's fine- as I said, you can read what you want. I'm just explaining why a lot of people see it differently.
Alex3917 13y ago
It's funny how just about everything that comprises journistic 'ethics' is designed to make the megacorporations that own the media more profitable, and how every time the economics of the business change the code of ethics need to be 'updated'.
rainsford 13y ago
That's an interesting point, but I think it's difficult for journalists to demonstrate the transparency required for them to be both biased and trustworthy. Factually supporting your view doesn't mean as much when you're the one presenting and interpreting the facts. The Washington Post article has an applicable quote, “Do we know if he’s pulling his punches or has his fingers on the scale because some information that should he should be reporting doesn’t fit [with his cause]?”
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Well, the Post gave us nothing at all. I'd rather take slanted information than none.
jccc 13y ago
Please note also that "politics: none" as it is actually practiced is very much political and is inherently pro-government. There are only Republicans and Democrats, they are equal voices in all debates, and anything outside of that frame is fringe and crazy.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Not to mention that something subjectively (or even almost objectively) fringe or crazy immediately becomes exactly 50% true if one major party endorses the view.
clicks 13y ago
This is getting extremely scary that big-name journalists already are now smearing him with accussations of criminalities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU8-cBfgLJA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU8-cBfgLJA
- jmduke 13y ago
  As context: a lot of journalists haven't been the biggest fan of Greenwald for quite some time. His blog from '05-'10 (might be getting those dates wrong) covered some stuff such as the Valerie Plame affair, which was often criticized for lack of background research. As further context: Personally, I think its hard to vilify someone who lives with eleven rescued dogs.

namdnay 13y ago

As Camus said: "le goût de la vérité n'empêche pas la prise de parti" - (the taste for truth does not stop you from having an opinion). I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial: newspapers have had opinions for centuries!

walshemj 13y ago
Yes you write the story to suit the papers owners political leanings - even the Guardian bashes the BBC (the parent company owns a few low quality commercial radio stations). Let alone what Murdoch and the DMG et all get up to
peteretep 13y ago
Presentation of opinion as fact, and selection of a set of facts that support your opinion, with an accompanying omission of those that don't, is controversial.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  Selecting facts and presenting opinions while pretending not to have them is worse.
- namdnay 13y ago
  That's why you need the "taste for truth". It's not controversial in the business world: I am perfectly capable of giving an unbiased presentation of the pros and cons of Git over Mercurial, even though I personally prefer the latter.
mehwoot 13y ago
I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial Because humans in general have an extreme bias towards believing things they want to believe and not believing things they don't. It is very rare to find someone who truly reports things neutrally and even rarer in a situation where stringent neutrality is not fostered. I guess other people are free to read whatever they want, but I very rarely read opinion pieces or news from people who I know are firmly on one side or another. They are not usually honestly investigating the facts and more likely trying to sway people to their position. Whilst that is understandable as they are human, and they are not necessarily incorrect, it is not what I want from my news.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report.
  - untog 13y ago
    Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. No, the difference is whether or not the approach their writing aware of, and compensating for, their biases.
  - justin66 13y ago
    There really IS an objective truth to report. The NSA is either collecting certain data or it isn't, and so on. There's a lot of stuff like that. There's other, speculative stuff, like to what extent if any the NSA is breaking the law. I'd contend that a reporter who cannot present the facts as facts for fear of being perceived as "biased" or cannot form and state an opinion about the speculative/subjective stuff is kind of subpar.
  - mehwoot 13y ago
    The point is you want journalists working in an environment where it is expected people stay neutral. Whilst one person will have a bias, you always have other people who read the piece and edit it to keep that in check. That sort of person, even if they are just as biased as independent reporter X, will produce much more balanced work. It's all well and good to say "Oh everybody has a bias" but everybody's bias is not as large as anothers, and doesn't affect their writing in the same way. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report. That's fine- as I said, you can read what you want. I'm just explaining why a lot of people see it differently.

Alex3917 13y ago

It's funny how just about everything that comprises journistic 'ethics' is designed to make the megacorporations that own the media more profitable, and how every time the economics of the business change the code of ethics need to be 'updated'.

rainsford 13y ago

That's an interesting point, but I think it's difficult for journalists to demonstrate the transparency required for them to be both biased and trustworthy. Factually supporting your view doesn't mean as much when you're the one presenting and interpreting the facts. The Washington Post article has an applicable quote, “Do we know if he’s pulling his punches or has his fingers on the scale because some information that should he should be reporting doesn’t fit [with his cause]?”

Vivtek 13y ago
Well, the Post gave us nothing at all. I'd rather take slanted information than none.

jccc 13y ago

Please note also that "politics: none" as it is actually practiced is very much political and is inherently pro-government. There are only Republicans and Democrats, they are equal voices in all debates, and anything outside of that frame is fringe and crazy.

jbooth 13y ago
Not to mention that something subjectively (or even almost objectively) fringe or crazy immediately becomes exactly 50% true if one major party endorses the view.

clicks 13y ago

This is getting extremely scary that big-name journalists already are now smearing him with accussations of criminalities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU8-cBfgLJA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU8-cBfgLJA

jmduke 13y ago
As context: a lot of journalists haven't been the biggest fan of Greenwald for quite some time. His blog from '05-'10 (might be getting those dates wrong) covered some stuff such as the Valerie Plame affair, which was often criticized for lack of background research. As further context: Personally, I think its hard to vilify someone who lives with eleven rescued dogs.